A continual annoyance of the Windows Ecosystem

This is not Microsofts' fault, but to the end user, it doesn't really matter.

With Windows, a problem that for whatever reason doesn't happen with Linux, vendors can screw with the OS and cause the users problems.

I just experienced a problem with my Thinkpad's DVD drive, it can not copy several large files to the SSD without stalling (but the copy dialog stays open for hours). The bluray drive I bought for it (Ultrabay) works flawlessly.

My guess is there is a problem with driver for the DVD drive because I would hear it stop spinning just before the files stopped properly copying where the bluray drive kept spinning the whole time.So, I log in as admin as run Windows Update. No updates. Run the vendors Thinkpad update. 12 updates available, including wireless. I installed them hoping to clear up the stock DVD drive issue.

The wireless update replaced Microsofts connection stuff with it's own connection manager. Not a major problem when the laptop is docked and connecting to the LAN, but a problem as soon as I undock it. Won't connect to wireless.

I had to enter the key again to get it to connect, and entering the key again meant looking it up again.End users don't want to have to do that, and I shouldn't have had to, Lenovo had no business installing their own connection crap, the MS connection stuff works just fine. In fact, it works better. First time entering key again, it said connection problem. So I entered yet again, again it said connection problem. So I clicked cancel and launched the connection manager again and it connected - so clearly the key was good, it just has a bug that caused it to throw a mis-leading error message. And the Lenovo connection has a big fat signal strength in the notification area that I don't need.

So now I have to look up how to get rid of the Lenovo crap network manager and go back to what Windows 7 natively has.

The updates also reset my mouse settings. I disabled the UltraNav touchpad because my wrist keeps bumping it and the buttons below it, I prefer the eraser head and the buttons under the space bar, but updating the drivers lost my preferences. Users don't want to put up with that crap.

In this respect, I gotta say OS X and even Linux is far more user friendly than Windows.This isn't Microsofts fault, but the user doesn't care who's fault it is.

That being said, other than having an egotystical vendor that thinks they need to pull this crap and piss their customers off, I must say Windows 7 is really well done. But this vendor screwing with the OS thing has got to change,

It's not just OEMs that pull this nonsense. How many Windows apps try to install their own browser toolbars, or stick themselves in the system tray and run all the time for no good reason, or otherwise try to insinuate themselves into the system? Third-party developers seem to feel entirely at liberty to do these sorts of things on Windows, in a way that wouldn't be culturally acceptable on other platforms. This kind of nonsense is a significant part of the appeal of curated platforms for regular consumers, I think.

It's not just OEMs that pull this nonsense. How many Windows apps try to install their own browser toolbars, or stick themselves in the system tray and run all the time for no good reason, or otherwise try to insinuate themselves into the system? Third-party developers seem to feel entirely at liberty to do these sorts of things on Windows, in a way that wouldn't be culturally acceptable on other platforms. This kind of nonsense is a significant part of the appeal of curated platforms for regular consumers, I think.

It's a result of many years of neglect by Microsoft when they were the 800-lb gorilla, combined with a current regulatory situation where I doubt they could get tough on this stuff now without significant legal issues.

It's a result of many years of neglect by Microsoft when they were the 800-lb gorilla, combined with a current regulatory situation where I doubt they could get tough on this stuff now without significant legal issues.

Apparently they think they can with Windows 8, particularly on ARM where they go all iOS.

This kind of nonsense is a significant part of the appeal of curated platforms for regular consumers, I think.

The other alternative is a wild west of a platform, where developers are mostly in if for the joy of developing, and therefore don't want to fuck over their users. i.e. Linux. Linux apps are just as well behaved as OSX/iOS apps.

I don't get why these hardware management apps continue to be made. Windows can natively do brightness, ambience, networking, power management... All apps that might have been useful on XP, but fucking not needed in 7. Uninstall that shit ASAP.

I switched to Ubuntu a couple of monthes ago and it is a real breath of fresh air not having to be on constant watch over evey God damned installer to make sure it won't try to sneak in some crapware, often several peices.While strictly speaking, this is not MS's fault, they have clearly condoned the creation of a really toxic user experience. An experience I am damned glad to have put behind me.

While strictly speaking, this is not MS's fault, they have clearly condoned the creation of a really toxic user experience.

Actually, it was the US Federal Government which "condoned" such things, when it prohibited MS from in any way restricting what OEMs could install along with the operating system. See item C (but especially sub-items 1 and 3) on page 3 of the final US v Microsoft settlement. As previously mentioned, if you want a PC without all that crap, buy it from MS themselves. Via their "Signature" service, they perform real work to actively remove all that crap. So it's hard to build an evidence based argument that MS actively condone shovelware.

While strictly speaking, this is not MS's fault, they have clearly condoned the creation of a really toxic user experience.

Actually, it was the US Federal Government which "condoned" such things, when it prohibited MS from in any way restricting what OEMs could install along with the operating system. See item C (but especially sub-items 1 and 3) on page 3 of the final US v Microsoft settlement. As previously mentioned, if you want a PC without all that crap, buy it from MS themselves. Via their "Signature" service, they perform real work to actively remove all that crap. So it's hard to build an evidence based argument that MS actively condone shovelware.

They can-- it's not in the interest of a system that's subsidized by shovelware vendors paying the OEM for the OEM to provide an easy way around to get back to a clean OS.

Buy a system higher up the scale and you get little to zero shovelware. (And pay for it, since the OEM's not being subsidized.)

But it does come down to what the OEM considers shovelware and crapware. Take wireless connections - Microsoft provides built in tools but Lenovo insist on including their own software, would that be considered crapware/shovelware or an OEM differentiating their experience from other OEM's?

They can-- it's not in the interest of a system that's subsidized by shovelware vendors paying the OEM for the OEM to provide an easy way around to get back to a clean OS.

Buy a system higher up the scale and you get little to zero shovelware. (And pay for it, since the OEM's not being subsidized.)

But it does come down to what the OEM considers shovelware and crapware. Take wireless connections - Microsoft provides built in tools but Lenovo insist on including their own software, would that be considered crapware/shovelware or an OEM differentiating their experience from other OEM's?

Pre-XP SP2 (or even pre-Vista), those connection managers served a purpose, especially for non-techies. Today they are redundant crapware.

While strictly speaking, this is not MS's fault, they have clearly condoned the creation of a really toxic user experience.

Actually, it was the US Federal Government which "condoned" such things, when it prohibited MS from in any way restricting what OEMs could install along with the operating system. See item C (but especially sub-items 1 and 3) on page 3 of the final US v Microsoft settlement. As previously mentioned, if you want a PC without all that crap, buy it from MS themselves. Via their "Signature" service, they perform real work to actively remove all that crap. So it's hard to build an evidence based argument that MS actively condone shovelware.

That is true but so what?The bottom line is that the user experience on Windows is often terrible relative to other OS's and who is at fault is not the consumers problem.

Thinkvantage Access Connections (the software in question) is not ad-ware or shovel-ware. It started out as a ways for IBM to get around shortcomings in the XP wireless manager, some of which it still has. You can f.ex. use it to deliver profiles for wireless access through AD and other domain management systems and you can take backups of your profiles. Many of the problems associated with it come because windows really doesn't allow for this and you still have to run zero management alongside whatever 3rd parties want to. I wouldn't recommend Access Connections though to non enterprise users. Access Connections don't have anything to do with the driver in question. You can just uninstall it through the Uninstall a Program window and Zero Management should kick in after a restart (YMMV, create a restore point). Drivers come separately.

Really MS vs OEM's has alway been a problem. OEM's do not really get a chance to differentiate like Lenovo/IBM is trying here and MS can't loosen the chain because they will usually make a mess of it. All the while the OEM's do not really have a way out when MS begins to loose to Apple and have to fight for smaller margins in a shrinking market. It would really be prudent to have a backup strategy like Meego or some such.

It's not just Microsft which has a problem, it's also software developers who totally f up the experience. I was setting up a Windows system for the first time in half a decade, and was SHOCKED at how awful software installers have become. They try to cram As much junk and spyware as they can, and utilize all kinds of tricks to disguise what the "Next" button will do. Just DOWNLOADING legit software has become a chore too, with a bunch of fake download links on software repository websites (which are the only download mirrors linked to by small time developer's websites). Its not sketchy software either, it's stuff like uTorrent (since when did uTorrent need an installer? It used to be a tiny 600kb exe that could be copied anywhere, and run from there) and ISObuster: stuff I used to rely on and trust back when I was a windows users. It's gotten to the state where the only way I can somewhat trust a software installer is if it came from a multimillion dollar developer like Mozilla, Oracle, or Microsoft. This is TOXIC for small developers.

And Mac users bitch and moan about Adobe's installers. They have NO idea how bad it is on the other side. Windows Store can't come soon enough.

While strictly speaking, this is not MS's fault, they have clearly condoned the creation of a really toxic user experience.

Actually, it was the US Federal Government which "condoned" such things, when it prohibited MS from in any way restricting what OEMs could install along with the operating system. See item C (but especially sub-items 1 and 3) on page 3 of the final US v Microsoft settlement. As previously mentioned, if you want a PC without all that crap, buy it from MS themselves. Via their "Signature" service, they perform real work to actively remove all that crap. So it's hard to build an evidence based argument that MS actively condone shovelware.

That is true but so what?The bottom line is that the user experience on Windows is often terrible relative to other OS's and who is at fault is not the consumers problem.

I certainly agree that it's a bad thing that Windows users must essentially go to DefCon 3 levels of vigilance when it's time to acquire and setup a new PC, or get and install new software on an existing PC. While I would not call it "terrible," I would say that it most definitely is a drag on the ecosystem, and that This Friction Needs To Be Dramatically Reduced. But the process of redeucing this friction is clearly under way at Microsoft, and arguably has been for a long time.

I would also argue that there was little MS could have done about it until someone else (Apple) made the curated App Store approach work in a commercial, 'baked into the OS' setting. Imagine Microsoft trying to build their own App Store in the midst of the US v Microsoft case - or during their contentions with the European Union Commission. Seriously, try and imagine it. It simply wouldn't have been possible. MS desperately needed someone else to have widespread success with a curated, commercial App Store before they could even hint at doing the same.

But I can't help noticing that in this quoted post, you have moved your goalposts considerably!

I would also argue that there was little MS could have done about it until someone else (Apple) made the curated App Store approach work in a commercial, 'baked into the OS' setting. Imagine Microsoft trying to build their own App Store in the midst of the US v Microsoft case - or during their contentions with the European Union Commission. Seriously, try and imagine it. It simply wouldn't have been possible. MS desperately needed someone else to have widespread success with a curated, commercial App Store before they could even hint at doing the same.

Not sure you need a curated app store to have a nice experience. OSX didn't have one for the majority of its lifetime, but it HAS had a dead simple installation procedure that makes it very difficult for developers to fuck up with excess bloat. MS could have easily gotten rid of self-extracting executables, created an network-transferable disk image format (or even used .zips; whatever it takes), made a way to mount those images easily, and eliminate the registry so that you don't NEED installers (ok, maybe this part is not easy). Is there a GOOD reason why program directories are nested so deeply in a way that's visible to users (C:\Program Files\$DEVELOPER\$NAMEOFPROGRAM\executablefile.exe)? Is that really necessary? It should just be C:\Apps\$PROGRAM, and hide the contents unless the user really wants to see (and manipulate it). Drag $PROGRAM into C:\Apps, and you're done. In fact, fuck the mounting step. I think that's the biggest obstacle for new OSX users. Just make the disk image (or zip, or whatever) self-contained, so that you just drag it to C:\Apps, and not have to do anything to it to run the program like opening it up. Or hell, just run it from where it is.

MS could have easily done this without running afoul of antitrust regulations, but they were so stuck in the mindset of "MUST PRESERVE LEGACY COMPATIBILITY AT ALL COSTS!"

Well, at least we're getting it now with Metro. Metro-style app installation should have come at least 3 years ago, though.

Not sure you need a curated app store to have a nice experience. OSX didn't have one for the majority of its lifetime, but it HAS had a dead simple installation procedure that makes it very difficult for developers to fuck up with excess bloat. MS could have easily gotten rid of self-extracting executables, created an network-transferable disk image format (or even used .zips; whatever it takes), made a way to mount those images easily, and eliminate the registry so that you don't NEED installers (ok, maybe this part is not easy).

I don't understand how any of this would in your words "make it very difficult for developers to fuck up with excess bloat," at least in the context of this thread, which is about shovelware.

The simple fact is that commercial software/hardware vendors like money, and adding shovelware to a hardware or software product can provide additional revenue streams. The lower pricing inherent in the much larger and more competitive Windows ecosystem made these additional revenue streams attractive to some vendors. The lack of oversight made it certain that some vendors would find it very hard to resist the attraction. Without something like an App Store, MS had no way at all to enforce any standards they might want vendors to adhere to.

OSX's smaller ecosphere, with higher profit margins and a different culture, made it much more resistant to such temptations. Though I wouldn't be surprised if we could find a few vendors who tried it anyway.

Another thing Microsoft could have done is offer a repository for small time developers. Not an app store, but something like Sourceforge, with a non-configurable (for the developer) standardized web interface with hosting for programs. Don't take a cut from sales, but charge for hosting as an optional addon through MSDN or whatever it is that Windows developers sign up for. This way, small time developers don't have to rely on shady sites like Download.com or Softpedia. No ads, no fake download links, no popups: a safe, trusted, secure environment to find and download programs.

Not sure you need a curated app store to have a nice experience. OSX didn't have one for the majority of its lifetime, but it HAS had a dead simple installation procedure that makes it very difficult for developers to fuck up with excess bloat. MS could have easily gotten rid of self-extracting executables, created an network-transferable disk image format (or even used .zips; whatever it takes), made a way to mount those images easily, and eliminate the registry so that you don't NEED installers (ok, maybe this part is not easy).

I don't understand how any of this would in your words "make it very difficult for developers to fuck up with excess bloat," at least in the context of this thread, which is about shovelware.

The simple fact is that commercial software/hardware vendors like money, and adding shovelware to a hardware or software product can provide additional revenue streams. The lower pricing inherent in the much larger and more competitive Windows ecosystem made these additional revenue streams attractive to some vendors. The lack of oversight made it certain that some vendors would find it very hard to resist the attraction. Without something like an App Store, MS had no way at all to enforce any standards they might want vendors to adhere to.

I think a reason (though I'm talking out of mynass here: I've never developed a commercial windows software product) small time developers bundle bloat is because they can get away with it: they are the ones in control of what the installer wizard does. If you eliminated software installers, and made a standard way to add programs to Windows, it would go a long way to prevent bloat. Eliminate an installation wizard, and then there's no way a developer can automatically install other crap the user didn't want. It's the click through process which is what leads to annoyance. Sure, developers are still free to include other third party apps in their packages, but it does self execute and install automatically.

Quote:

OSX's smaller ecosphere, with higher profit margins and a different culture, made it much more resistant to such temptations. Though I wouldn't be surprised if we could find a few vendors who tried it anyway.

I dunno. Because the market is so tiny, revenues are low, so there's MORE of a temptation to add on more revenue streams (I.e. Bundles crapware). But that didn't happen because the only automatic installation system on OSX is mpkg, which is something users don't trust (BECAUSE of the chance of crapware).

I think a reason (though I'm talking out of mynass here: I've never developed a commercial windows software product) small time developers bundle bloat is because they can get away with it: they are the ones in control of what the installer wizard does.

Two things:

1) There aren't really a lot of application installers in the Windows world which add shovelware. A few very popular ones do this (Adobe comes to mind, thought they are far less blatant about it now than they used to be) but they are the minority. Most apps only install themselves - it's just that we don't remember those as clearly.

2) "because they can get away with it" ... what part of any other non-curated installer mechanism keeps a coder from "getting away with it"? Be specific here! You've already noted that other installation mechanisms allow the same kinds of behavior. The person who makes the "installer", even if it is just a drag and drop thingy, has all the control he needs to include anything he wants in the package.

Wizards allow automatic installation in a click through manner, and dick about with system files. Drag and drop "installers" are self contained. They don't mess with system files, they don't add "features" to other programs (such as tool bars), and while they CAN include third party software in the package, it's up to the user to make a conscious decision to launch it.

The app itself can do all those things listed above, but the installer does not.

I guess the key difference (I.e. if you want me to be specific) is a wizard is an executable, whereas a drag and drop package is not.

I switched to Ubuntu a couple of monthes ago and it is a real breath of fresh air not having to be on constant watch over evey God damned installer to make sure it won't try to sneak in some crapware, often several peices.While strictly speaking, this is not MS's fault, they have clearly condoned the creation of a really toxic user experience. An experience I am damned glad to have put behind me.

That solution works great until you want to install something and it's not available for Ubuntu, you find an issue and the answer is applicable to another version of linux, a program doesn't have a GUI or you end up spending a ton of time learning linux commands only to learn that the commands and file system don't apply to your distro.

YOur point about Microsoft creating a toxic environment are true, but linuxes are no better. There's a reason why they're free and almost nobody uses them.

Apple is the only company that really does a good job of controlling this. Microsoft could, but they'd rather that each OEM be able to get a few extra dollars from shareware as the money eventually flows into their coffers.

Look, I don't like Ubuntu, but I do appreciate it's strengths, and I don't see the need to spread FUD about it:

general wrote:

That solution works great until you want to install something and it's not available for Ubuntu

Ubuntu is the biggest single distro. If it isn't available in Synaptic, it isn't available for ANY distro. Same goes for answers online about problems you may come across: the VAST majority of solutions/guides/how-tos are aimed at Debian-based distros, Ubuntu specifically.

Quote:

a program doesn't have a GUI or you end up spending a ton of time learning linux commands only to learn that the commands and file system don't apply to your distro.

That MIGHT conceivably be true in a theoretical academic sense, but all Linuxes are GNU (it's officially called GNU/Linux, after all), so the main commands are the same for all distros. The commands which are distro specific, only very very advanced users will come across (WITH the exception of package manager commands). If you are talking non-Linux *nixes (such as BSD), then yes, by all means, you are correct. File system is an abstraction that the user doesn't have to deal with. Heck, some distros (in particular, ones meant to be run off a flash drive) use Ext as a layer above FAT, which just goes to show how abstracted and irrelevant to the end-user the FS is in Linux. Besides, most distros (and we're talking about Ubuntu here, so this is definitely true of Ubuntu) use some variant of Ext by default. Only exotic distros use something like ReiserFS. Don't believe anything uses BTRFS by default, as it's still not really production ready.

Also, with respect to the "finding irrelevant solutions to problems" being more of an issue with a heterogenous ecosystem is just plain false. Have you ever tried to navigate VMWare's website? I've been setting up an ESXi server recently, and their website is the most byzantine thing I've ever come across. The search feature is broken and completely useless, and 80% of Google links to their website are for old versions of ESXi. Apple's knowledge base is better, but still terrible. Google is full of dead links to orphaned Apple kb articles. The Apple kb articles which ARE relevant have very little real troubleshooting/internals information (due to their legendary secretiveness). And forget about trying to get help on the Apple Support Communities. I've pretty much given up there, and rely on Ars (which is a resource that the average user would either not know about, or if they do, would be too intimidated to join). Your only real option with Apple is to call/visit them directly in meatspace, which is a waste of time and money for both Apple and the user.

On the other hand, check out Arch Linux's wiki and the FreeBSD Hand Manual sometime. The MOST complete resource on any software product, EVER. I dare you to find better documentation for ANY product, in ANY industry.

With Windows, a problem that for whatever reason doesn't happen with Linux, vendors can screw with the OS and cause the users problems.

It would be really nice if this were true. It's not. For example, the other day I was reinstalling an Oracle Enterprise Linux system and running into a lot of problems before I realized that Oracle had a code fork in the kernel and was using a non-standard install device (instead of /dev/sd*). Since the system has several SATA controllers it took me a long time to figure out what the actual install device was. Other Linux vendors randomly rearrange the filesystem.

Wizards allow automatic installation in a click through manner, and dick about with system files. Drag and drop "installers" are self contained. They don't mess with system files, they don't add "features" to other programs (such as tool bars), and while they CAN include third party software in the package, it's up to the user to make a conscious decision to launch it.

The app itself can do all those things listed above, but the installer does not.

I guess the key difference (I.e. if you want me to be specific) is a wizard is an executable, whereas a drag and drop package is not.

The only difference here is history and user culture.

There is no technological reason programs cannot use drag-and-drop installation on Windows.

There is no technological reason programs "installed" with drag-and-drop on MacOS cannot just do all the bad things the first time it's run instead of at install-time.